Special BoT meeting today
- Thread starter simons96
- Start date
none of the current have broken ranks, but Clemens and Garban
resigned.... Upon his resignation, Clemens stated that he knew the BOT screwed it up, and based on those who know him, Garban also says the way they handled it in Nov. '11 was the biggest mistake they could have made. I'd love to know what Garban knew and when about JS.
Mimi Coopersmith, who was/is an Emeritus BOT member, has stated that there was a rush to judgment and a flawed Freeh report. (read it in Town & Gown a year or more ago).
Only reason I can think of that the old guard BOT wants to keep paying out claims and not being transparent is to keep what they knew and when they knew it under wraps. Too many direct and indirect ties to TSM, who knew more than anyone what JS was up to. That, and that they knew a lot more than Joe did.
resigned.... Upon his resignation, Clemens stated that he knew the BOT screwed it up, and based on those who know him, Garban also says the way they handled it in Nov. '11 was the biggest mistake they could have made. I'd love to know what Garban knew and when about JS.
Mimi Coopersmith, who was/is an Emeritus BOT member, has stated that there was a rush to judgment and a flawed Freeh report. (read it in Town & Gown a year or more ago).
Only reason I can think of that the old guard BOT wants to keep paying out claims and not being transparent is to keep what they knew and when they knew it under wraps. Too many direct and indirect ties to TSM, who knew more than anyone what JS was up to. That, and that they knew a lot more than Joe did.
Re: What did they agree on? Was it a specific victim settlement?
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...847C3B07FFE7CF334B0A5B44042C61C29&FORM=IQFRBA
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...847C3B07FFE7CF334B0A5B44042C61C29&FORM=IQFRBA
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Re: What did they agree on? Was it a specific victim settlement?
This post was edited on 4/9 3:46 PM by Cruising Route 66
This post was edited on 4/9 3:46 PM by Cruising Route 66
Re: What did they agree on? Was it a specific victim settlement?
Unless you were in that executive session, who are you to say that they are not being truthful?
If you were in that meeting, thanks for outing yourself as one of the evil turds who got us in this mess.
I listened to the public meeting, during which the alumni-elected trustees specifically complained about denied access to adequate information.
Unless you were in that executive session, who are you to say that they are not being truthful?
If you were in that meeting, thanks for outing yourself as one of the evil turds who got us in this mess.
Re: What did they agree on? Was it a specific victim settlement?
I ask this kindly of CR66: please stop posting to my threads. you add nothing of value and I believe you are fully aware of how deeply full of sh*t you are. just stop trolling dude. maybe learn to knit. a noose, preferably.
Well they won't be using any of my money to pay anyone.
My last check to the University was date October 25, 2011 and I wish had dragged my feet a couple weeks and I would have never sent it. Unless they channel my Thon contributions, they won't see a penny of my money again. I'm really not sure what events will ever get me to donate to Penn State again. The cumulative weight of the NCAA fine/penalties, the B1G bowl penalty, the extortion payments, the grease money to Freeh, etc., etc. there's no way I can see any contribution of mine going anywhere except to recover from these payments.
I love my Penn State experience as a student, alumni admissions volunteer, alumni chapter officer/Board member, chapter scholarship trustee, and so many other facets, but sadly the people who now as the majority project the face of the University's administration are not my people, are not my Penn State, and are not getting my money, ever; and ever is a long, long time.
My last check to the University was date October 25, 2011 and I wish had dragged my feet a couple weeks and I would have never sent it. Unless they channel my Thon contributions, they won't see a penny of my money again. I'm really not sure what events will ever get me to donate to Penn State again. The cumulative weight of the NCAA fine/penalties, the B1G bowl penalty, the extortion payments, the grease money to Freeh, etc., etc. there's no way I can see any contribution of mine going anywhere except to recover from these payments.
I love my Penn State experience as a student, alumni admissions volunteer, alumni chapter officer/Board member, chapter scholarship trustee, and so many other facets, but sadly the people who now as the majority project the face of the University's administration are not my people, are not my Penn State, and are not getting my money, ever; and ever is a long, long time.
F*ck justice.....these pukes on the BOT need to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail!
Several thousand Alumni need to show up at the next meeting and take back the university from these ashh*les!
No courts needed, just a whole lot of nooses for these thieves....there's still enough trees on campus to hang them all!!!!
Several thousand Alumni need to show up at the next meeting and take back the university from these ashh*les!
No courts needed, just a whole lot of nooses for these thieves....there's still enough trees on campus to hang them all!!!!
I think the following text from the elected trustees remarks at todays meeting shed some light on how they were denied info before the vote (especially at the end of Lubrano's statement he talks about Masser not giving him access to freeh files):
Trustee Ryan McCombie
The legal committee may have sufficient information to make a bona fide, thoughtful decision on this matter. Others on this Board may believe they also have sufficient information to vote for this extraordinary expenditure of funds. The driving impetus for the settlement of this case appears to be the pro-victim bias of the Philadelphia court system. Although this may be one factor, I have not had the opportunity to understand the culpability of Penn State nor the financial risk Penn State may need accept. I have not seen an executive summary of these risks from our outside counsel in this matter. I have not heard the perspective of our insurance companies. With the paucity of information I presently have, in good conscious, I cannot support this resolution at this time.
Trustee Alice Pope
I am a child psychologist and a university professor. My life has been devoted to promoting the well-being of young people. I have great compassion for the victims of Jerry Sandusky.
However, as a trustee of this university, I cannot support a victim settlement when we have failed in our duty to protect and defend the university against false accusations.
Every day that we silently stand in support of the Freeh report is a day that we allow the world to believe that we agree with its conclusions. Our tacit support of the Freeh report exposes the university to claims of our moral and legal culpability that have, in fact, not been established.
I will vote no on this settlement proposal, and I urge my fellow trustees to join me in executing our fiduciary duty to protect the university by repudiating the Freeh report at the earliest opportunity.
Trustee Ted Brown
First, I must express my sympathy for the Sandusky victims, but they are not Penn State victims. I have previously spoken in favor of settlements, but no more. I'm tired of rushing to judgment. We have 30 minutes to discuss an important decision. (actually cut off after 40) Not enough time. Having read about 1000 pages of depositions, I find Penn State's only guilt is that implied and quoted from the Freeh report as if's Gospel, and we know it has been refuted by everyone except this Board. If you have not read the depositions, you should abstain or vote no until you do. Once you've read them, I believe you'll join me in voting, no thus defending our beloved Alma Mater.
Trustee Bill Oldsey
I am absolutely uncomfortable with our methods for making a decision of this magnitude today.
A 30 minute telephone conference simply does not cut it when it comes to any decision of this importance involving large sums of University money, and by the way, a decision that may well impact the potential for additional and ever escalating demands from known or presently unknown future claimants.
As Trustees, we have received no written report or formal recommendation from our litigation counsel specifically discussing options and why this settlement is the best course of action for Penn State. It may well be, but I as an individual trustee don't know that from the paucity of information that has been provided to me.
For that reason alone, I cannot support moving forward with this action and vote emphatically no!
Trustee Bob Jubelirer
I spent thirty two years in Pa. Senate and had to make many tough votes. Today is the first one since I was elected to the board last year that is in that category. Nevertheless, I cannot support this resolution and believe I am fulfilling my fiduciary duty as a trustee with a negative vote. It has been far too common to be given information with little time to digest and then be asked to vote for significant expenditures. The Freeh Report is the lynchpin upon which this resolution and other expenditures have been made. This report has never been adopted by the board but has been used as the vehicle for substantial payouts by the University. I am not able to support this just because we are a defendant with deep pockets. It surely will bring new claimants out of the woodwork regardless of whether they are legitimate. There comes a time to stand firm against this type of legal pressure, turn off the spigot and stand up for the University. I am casting a negative vote on the resolution to send a strong message that we will not be bullied anymore into paying out claims that we do not owe.
Trustee Anthony Lubrano
I rise in opposition to this Resolution.
I proudly joined this board in July, 2012. In fact, my very first meeting was July 12, 2012, a day that will live in infamy in the Penn State community. On that day, Louis Freeh released his Report, a Report that has been harshly criticized by many for its unfounded conclusions.
Of course, this body has yet to either accept or reject the findings of the Freeh Report which cost the University 8.3 million dollars. Instead, we seem to have adopted a policy of "just pay and move on."
Unfortunately, Penn State continues to pay, quite literally and figuratively, almost three years later. And today, we look to pay again.
But I say, "No more." "No more" Resolutions to approve settlements while denying Trustees full access to the source materials used to prepare the Freeh Report.
"No more" feeding at the trough of Penn State. As Trustee Lord reminds us, our policy of expedience has been an abject failure. The time has come for us to say "No more."
I hereby request that the Secretary note in the minutes that I asked Chairman Masser, through University counsel, for full access to source materials necessary to inform the exercise of my independent judgment on this Board Resolution. My request was repeatedly denied.
Put simply, without full access to this information, I am unable to exercise my independent judgment as a Trustee in this matter.
Trustee Al Lord
In cooperation with Legal Chair D'Andrea I have voluntarily recused myself from participation this meeting.
I accept there are perceived, and likely real, conflicts of interest between and among certain trustees with respect to the lawsuit filed by former Penn State President Graham Spanier which, among other things, alleges disparagement by Penn State Trustees as well as defamation of his character by Louis Freeh. I further accept that my relationship with President Spanier puts me among such potentially conflicted trustees. So that this Board of Trustees can fairly make judgments between real and perceived conflicts with Penn State's "best interests" I call upon this Board to clarify by definition what it deems Penn State's "best interests" to be with respect to each count alleged in the Complaint filed by President Spanier on March 18, 2015.
Though this vote may not be registered today, I vote NO on the proposed victim settlement(s). While previous settlements may well have been sympathetically motivated and considered legally expedient at the time, such settlements presume Penn State financial responsibility to victims. Our policy of expedience has been an abject failure. Worse, our attempt to pacify the "politically correct others" is based on the presumption that an innocent Penn State is guilty. Does our cynicism know no bounds?
Victims may be due recompense-from Sandusky not Penn State
Trustee Ryan McCombie
The legal committee may have sufficient information to make a bona fide, thoughtful decision on this matter. Others on this Board may believe they also have sufficient information to vote for this extraordinary expenditure of funds. The driving impetus for the settlement of this case appears to be the pro-victim bias of the Philadelphia court system. Although this may be one factor, I have not had the opportunity to understand the culpability of Penn State nor the financial risk Penn State may need accept. I have not seen an executive summary of these risks from our outside counsel in this matter. I have not heard the perspective of our insurance companies. With the paucity of information I presently have, in good conscious, I cannot support this resolution at this time.
Trustee Alice Pope
I am a child psychologist and a university professor. My life has been devoted to promoting the well-being of young people. I have great compassion for the victims of Jerry Sandusky.
However, as a trustee of this university, I cannot support a victim settlement when we have failed in our duty to protect and defend the university against false accusations.
Every day that we silently stand in support of the Freeh report is a day that we allow the world to believe that we agree with its conclusions. Our tacit support of the Freeh report exposes the university to claims of our moral and legal culpability that have, in fact, not been established.
I will vote no on this settlement proposal, and I urge my fellow trustees to join me in executing our fiduciary duty to protect the university by repudiating the Freeh report at the earliest opportunity.
Trustee Ted Brown
First, I must express my sympathy for the Sandusky victims, but they are not Penn State victims. I have previously spoken in favor of settlements, but no more. I'm tired of rushing to judgment. We have 30 minutes to discuss an important decision. (actually cut off after 40) Not enough time. Having read about 1000 pages of depositions, I find Penn State's only guilt is that implied and quoted from the Freeh report as if's Gospel, and we know it has been refuted by everyone except this Board. If you have not read the depositions, you should abstain or vote no until you do. Once you've read them, I believe you'll join me in voting, no thus defending our beloved Alma Mater.
Trustee Bill Oldsey
I am absolutely uncomfortable with our methods for making a decision of this magnitude today.
A 30 minute telephone conference simply does not cut it when it comes to any decision of this importance involving large sums of University money, and by the way, a decision that may well impact the potential for additional and ever escalating demands from known or presently unknown future claimants.
As Trustees, we have received no written report or formal recommendation from our litigation counsel specifically discussing options and why this settlement is the best course of action for Penn State. It may well be, but I as an individual trustee don't know that from the paucity of information that has been provided to me.
For that reason alone, I cannot support moving forward with this action and vote emphatically no!
Trustee Bob Jubelirer
I spent thirty two years in Pa. Senate and had to make many tough votes. Today is the first one since I was elected to the board last year that is in that category. Nevertheless, I cannot support this resolution and believe I am fulfilling my fiduciary duty as a trustee with a negative vote. It has been far too common to be given information with little time to digest and then be asked to vote for significant expenditures. The Freeh Report is the lynchpin upon which this resolution and other expenditures have been made. This report has never been adopted by the board but has been used as the vehicle for substantial payouts by the University. I am not able to support this just because we are a defendant with deep pockets. It surely will bring new claimants out of the woodwork regardless of whether they are legitimate. There comes a time to stand firm against this type of legal pressure, turn off the spigot and stand up for the University. I am casting a negative vote on the resolution to send a strong message that we will not be bullied anymore into paying out claims that we do not owe.
Trustee Anthony Lubrano
I rise in opposition to this Resolution.
I proudly joined this board in July, 2012. In fact, my very first meeting was July 12, 2012, a day that will live in infamy in the Penn State community. On that day, Louis Freeh released his Report, a Report that has been harshly criticized by many for its unfounded conclusions.
Of course, this body has yet to either accept or reject the findings of the Freeh Report which cost the University 8.3 million dollars. Instead, we seem to have adopted a policy of "just pay and move on."
Unfortunately, Penn State continues to pay, quite literally and figuratively, almost three years later. And today, we look to pay again.
But I say, "No more." "No more" Resolutions to approve settlements while denying Trustees full access to the source materials used to prepare the Freeh Report.
"No more" feeding at the trough of Penn State. As Trustee Lord reminds us, our policy of expedience has been an abject failure. The time has come for us to say "No more."
I hereby request that the Secretary note in the minutes that I asked Chairman Masser, through University counsel, for full access to source materials necessary to inform the exercise of my independent judgment on this Board Resolution. My request was repeatedly denied.
Put simply, without full access to this information, I am unable to exercise my independent judgment as a Trustee in this matter.
Trustee Al Lord
In cooperation with Legal Chair D'Andrea I have voluntarily recused myself from participation this meeting.
I accept there are perceived, and likely real, conflicts of interest between and among certain trustees with respect to the lawsuit filed by former Penn State President Graham Spanier which, among other things, alleges disparagement by Penn State Trustees as well as defamation of his character by Louis Freeh. I further accept that my relationship with President Spanier puts me among such potentially conflicted trustees. So that this Board of Trustees can fairly make judgments between real and perceived conflicts with Penn State's "best interests" I call upon this Board to clarify by definition what it deems Penn State's "best interests" to be with respect to each count alleged in the Complaint filed by President Spanier on March 18, 2015.
Though this vote may not be registered today, I vote NO on the proposed victim settlement(s). While previous settlements may well have been sympathetically motivated and considered legally expedient at the time, such settlements presume Penn State financial responsibility to victims. Our policy of expedience has been an abject failure. Worse, our attempt to pacify the "politically correct others" is based on the presumption that an innocent Penn State is guilty. Does our cynicism know no bounds?
Victims may be due recompense-from Sandusky not Penn State
FOOLS............
THEY have already and continue to............hurt Penn State at every meeting they have.
These people are HIDING something........They protect themselves and their sacred fortunes (they have NO sacred honor to protect) while selling Penn State down the river. SHAME on you your dirty ^&*@#$@!^
We need a legislative miracle or a divine act from God, to get these people off of the BOT's.
THEY have already and continue to............hurt Penn State at every meeting they have.
These people are HIDING something........They protect themselves and their sacred fortunes (they have NO sacred honor to protect) while selling Penn State down the river. SHAME on you your dirty ^&*@#$@!^
We need a legislative miracle or a divine act from God, to get these people off of the BOT's.
